[EL] some analysis of Texas order

[Vince Leibowitz]

Suffice it to say, this has quite a few of us reeling here in Texas.

I am hopeful that an interim order will be issued allowing use of the use
of the interim maps created by the three-judge panel--or some other actual
instructions or guidance that shows this does not essentially constitute a
de facto removal of these positions from the March primary ballot. I cannot
imagine the chaos if one, two, or all three of these types of ballot
positions are dumped from the March primary ballot and special primaries
are required. Of course, I'd rather not see folks run through the primary
only to have to re-run in different districts when the court finally
decides this case.

If all three of these ballot positions aren't on the March Primary (which,
at this point, I'm wondering *how* they would be on the March primary
ballot), I can see two sets of very turnout-depressed elections and some
very unhappy folks at the state political parties that have to find the
funds to hold not one but two primaries.

There just seems like few good options here. We encouraged our clients not
to file until after the court made a decision on this case, although a
couple didn't follow our advice and have now filed for districts that are
"stayed." The myriad of questions popping into my inbox right now range
from "will the party be obligated to return my filing fee," to "if the
district boundaries don't change for us, are the petition-in-lieu-of-filing
fee signatures we already collected going to be good later, and can we get
them back from the party to file again, or do we have to start over and
collect new signatures?" all the way to "what happens if I re-file for my
county-level office now and win the primary and then they re-draw these
maps and I want to file for the legislative office I originally intended to
file for?" Our answer for most of these questions right now is, "we're
trying to find out," which is the more professional way of saying, "who
knows?"

What a disaster.

Vince Leibowitz

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Breaking News: Supreme Court Will Hear Texas Redistricting Cases<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26336>
> Posted on December 9, 2011 4:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26336>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> SCOTUSBlog<http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/texas-election-maps-blocked-for-now/>:
> “The Supreme Court, working late on a Friday, agreed to rule on the
> constitutionality of three redistricting plans for the two houses of the
> Texas legislature and its U.S. House of Representatives delegation, and put
> on hold temporarily a U.S. District Court’s interim maps.”
>
> Here<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Perry_v_Perez_et_al-12-9-11.pdf>is the Court’s order.
>
> Given what the Court did, with no stated dissents, it is not clear why
> this had to wait until Friday at 7 pm eastern to issue.
>
> More importantly, it is also not clear what is supposed to happen now in
> Texas.  What districts can be used, if the districts crafted by the
> three-judge court are now “stayed pending further order of this Court?”
>
> The case will be argued on January 9.  It is possible the Court will grant
> an interim order before then addressing which districts should be used.
> (Perhaps that was the reason for the delay, and it did not come together.
> Were they cobbling together a plan and/or an order?  Were there dissents?)
> Or the Court may try to rush an opinion soon after argument.
>
> Notably, what the Court did *not* do is remand the case to the lower
> court to redraw the districts with greater deference to the Texas-submitted
> plans (as Texas had requested).  My surmise is that the second opinion
> issued by that court, the one Judge Smith in dissent characterized<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26059>as having the “smell of brief on appeal,” could well have caused the
> Supreme Court to lose faith in whether the lower court would faithfully
> carry out such an order.
>
> And now the Supreme Court is going to be thrust in the unusual position of
> deciding a case with immediate partisan consequences.  It is no
> exaggeration to say that with three or four additional Democratic seats at
> issue under the original Court-drawn plan, the decision could help decide
> control of the House.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26336&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Will%20Hear%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Cases&description=>
>   Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> On 12/9/11 4:09 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26336
>
>  Breaking News: Supreme Court Will Hear Texas Redistricting Cases<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26336>
> Posted on December 9, 2011 4:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26336>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> SCOTUSBlog<http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/texas-election-maps-blocked-for-now/>:
> “The Supreme Court, working late on a Friday, agreed to rule on the
> constitutionality of three redistricting plans for the two houses of the
> Texas legislature and its U.S. House of Representatives delegation, and put
> on hold temporarily a U.S. District Court’s interim maps.”
>
> This post will be updated.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26336&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Will%20Hear%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Cases&description=>
>   Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off |
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
_______________________________
Vince Leibowitz
Principal Consultant
The Dawn Group
vince.leibowitz at gmail.com
vince at dgtexas.com
DGTexas.com
512.705.7001 (m)
512.861.2370 (f)
512.318.2432 (o)
*
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work-product immunity
or other legal rules. If you are not the named addressee, you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender
immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete
this email from your system. *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111209/181f6ddd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111209/181f6ddd/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111209/181f6ddd/attachment-0001.png>